Jim Murphy: I have today laid the Government Car and Despatch Agency annual report and accounts 2004–05 before Parliament, copies of which are available in both Libraries of the House.

Dawn Primarolo: The Government propose to bring forward legislation in the next available Finance Bill to exempt from tax certain payments made in relation to bank accounts of holocaust victims, as described below.
	The HM Revenue and Customs extra-statutory concession, A100, introduced on 8 May 2000, provides a tax exemption for compensation payments made by UK banks under their scheme called "Restore UK". The scheme is designed to identify and compensate claimants to dormant accounts opened by holocaust victims and frozen during World War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
	Since the introduction of the extra-statutory concession it has come to light that comparable payments may be made to holocaust victims or their heirs in respect of moneys held by the banks of other countries. For example, claims may be made by victims or targets of Nazi persecution or their heirs through the Claims Resolution Tribunal (CRT) for Dormant Accounts in Switzerland in respect of monies deposited in Swiss banks in the period before and during the Second World War. The CRT was established as a consequence of the Holocaust Victims Assets Litigation in America.
	The CRT awards made to the holocaust victims or their heirs and any comparable payments made by the banks of other countries are outside the scope of ESC A100, because it is available only for payments made under the "Restore UK" scheme run by UK banks.
	Following discussions between the Association of Jewish Refugees and HMRC, the Government propose to bring forward legislation in the next available Finance Bill. The legislation will exempt from income tax and capital gains tax payments made to holocaust victims or their heirs when they are broadly comparable to the awards made under the "Restore UK" scheme run by UK banks. This will include any amount designed to cover interest and inflation by increasing the account balance to make it a fairer reflection of the amount originally deposited. The exemption will be available whenever the award or payment was made, so long as the criteria set out in the legislation are met.
	The proposal is that there will be a provision in the legislation so that anyone who has included a qualifying payment in their self assessment tax return and paid tax will be able to reclaim the tax, even if the normal time limit for amending the assessment has passed.
	The proposed legislation will also clarify the effect of the exemption for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes. Present-day recipients of these payments often derive their claim through intervening potential claimants who are now dead. The existing extra-statutory concession aims to ensure that the IHT affairs of these predecessors need not be re-opened because an account has been rediscovered. The Government propose that, when the accounts of holocaust victims or their heirs are rediscovered and compensation payments are made in respect of them, legislation in the Finance Bill will include an exemption from death duties for intervening potential claimants who died before the respective award scheme was opened for claims.
	At the same time as bringing forward legislation to provide a tax exemption for compensation payments that are broadly comparable to the "Restore UK" scheme, the Government propose to take the opportunity to put on a statutory footing the exemption currently available under ESC A100 for payments made by UK banks. So that too will be included in the proposed legislation.
	UK building societies may participate in the "Restore UK" scheme and ESC A100 applies to any compensation payments made by them to holocaust victims or their heirs. The proposed exemption will include payments by the building societies of other countries.
	More information about the proposed tax exemption and guidance for anyone who thinks they may be able to claim back tax already paid on an exempt award is in the news release published by HM Revenue and Customs today at www.hmrc.gov.uk/individuals/holocaust.htm/

Counter-Terrorist Finance

Family Proceedings Cases

John Reid: The Government made clear last year on 21 July 2004, Official Report, column 348 of their commitment to maintaining the effectiveness and safety of the nuclear deterrent including making the necessary investment in the facilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and Burghfield. To that end agreement has been reached with AWE Management Ltd. (AWE ML) to take forward a programme of investment in sustaining key skills and facilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. This will include the provision of necessary extra supporting infrastructure. Local planning authorities will be consulted on this work in the normal way, under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2005.
	The purpose of this investment of some £350 million over each of the next three years is to ensure that we can maintain the existing Trident warhead stockpile throughout its intended in-service life. In the absence of the ability to undertake live nuclear testing given that the UK has signed and ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it is necessary to invest in the facilities at AWE which will provide assurance that the existing Trident warhead stockpile is reliable and safe.

Local Government Finance (Formula Grant)

Phil Woolas: The priority goal for Government policy on local government finance is stability and certainty so that Local Authorities, their partners and the public have reasonable expectations of income and expenditure levels and trends.
	To that end I am today moving that policy forward with the introduction of three year settlements for local government, it is an opportune time to review the basis on which we distribute formula grant to local authorities in England. Formula grant underpins the provision of a wide range of local services and is not hypothecated, so that decisions on local priorities can be made by local authorities. We have already introduced a degree of stability in the formulae for grant distribution; these were last changed for 2003–04, and we made clear then that we would not change the underlying methodology for a period of three years. From 2006–07, we therefore have the opportunity to change the distribution system.
	We want to take this opportunity to consider four main issues. First, the formulae that we use to distribute grant are designed to reflect the relative circumstances of local authorities, as well as the policy or operational context for local authority services. There have been developments over the years which mean that some formulae are simply out of date in that, for example, they still use old data such as that from the 1991 census.
	Secondly, we need to establish a firm basis for the introduction of three year settlements for local government. As part of that agenda, we need to find ways of making the finance settlements more forward looking to reflect growth in population.
	Thirdly, we are examining ways of distributing grant that do not involve—or appear to involve—second guessing councils' spending and taxation decisions, to clarify accountability and responsibility for local choices.
	Finally, the system needs to reflect the change that is taking place in Government funding for schools.
	Following the last review of grant distribution formulae, the Government have run a number of research projects and have been working with local government and other interested parties to consider possible changes to the formulae which could be introduced once the freeze had ended. The official level Settlement Working Group, consisting of representatives from all types of local authority in England along with interested parties from central Government, has considered some 75 technical papers together with research reports over that period. Separate technical groups have examined the formulae for the Police, Fire and Rescue services. I am grateful to all those who assisted the Government whether by contributing to these discussions or helping with the research and survey work.
	Following on from that work, the Government are now launching public consultation on options for change to the formula grant system. I am today publishing the consultation document on the ODPM website at:
	http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0607/consult/index.htm.
	Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. We look forward to receiving views on our proposals. The consultation period will close on 10 October and the Government will then decide on the shape of the formula grant system from 2006–07 onwards.

Douglas Alexander: The General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) will be held on 18–19 July in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I will represent the UK.
	The Foreign Secretary will make a short intervention at the start of the GAERC on the London bombings.
	The agenda items are as follows:
	Presidency Work Programme
	The Foreign Secretary will give a brief presentation on the GAERC work programme over the next six months. This is an information point only. His presentation will include a brief comment on presidency plans for the future financing negotiation and the future of Europe dossiers. Other key dossiers are: Africa/development, enlargement, UN summit, WTO ministerial and various EU summits (with India, China, Russia, Ukraine and Canada).
	Enlargement
	The Foreign Secretary will debrief partners on the most recent meeting of the Croatia taskforce where there was further consideration of Croatian co-operation with the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. There was no change in the assessment. The Foreign Secretary will confirm our intention to return to this dossier in September. Commissioner Rehn will present the Commission's draft negotiating mandate for Turkey to the Council. We do not expect a substantive discussion.
	UN Millennium Review Summit
	Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner will present the Commission's communication on UN reform to the Council. Conclusions reiterating the EU's strong support for a successful UN Millennium review summit outcome are expected to be agreed. These will cover the full range of EU priorities at the UN on development, security and human rights.
	Syria/Lebanon
	Syria will be discussed over lunch and will include a briefing from Terje Roed-Larsen, the UN Secretary-General's special envoy on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1559. As presidency we will underline the importance on the full implementation of UNSCR 1559 and 1595; support the new Lebanese Government; and call on Syria to contribute to regional stability in Lebanon, Iraq and on the middle east peace process (MEPP).
	Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)
	High Representative Solana will debrief the Council on his recent (10–14 July) visit to the region. We then expect discussion to focus on disengagement (due to begin on 17 August). As presidency, our priorities remain to work to ensure that disengagement proceeds as smoothly as possible and that Gaza should be left economically viable. In this context, we will call for continued EU support to the work of Jim Wolfensohn, quartet special envoy on disengagement. As presidency, we will also highlight the importance of increased coordination between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on disengagement and continue to urge both sides to continue to implement their road map and Sharm el-Sheikh commitments.
	Iran
	The Council will hold a brief discussion of the results of the presidential election, EU/Iran relations and the E-3 process. As presidency, we will call for a continuation of the existing foreign policy towards Iran and continuation of E-3 dialogue.
	Zimbabwe
	The Council will discuss the crackdown by the authorities in Zimbabwe, which has destroyed housing and targeted informal traders. As presidency, we will be aiming for the agreement of Council conclusions, which make clear the EU's condemnation of these events and include consensus on the need to maintain EU pressure.
	Preparation of the EU-China Summit
	The EU-China summit will take place in Beijing on 5 September. The GAERC will discuss preparations for the summit. As presidency, we will update partners on the progress of negotiations with the Chinese. The GAERC will provide an opportunity for partners to feed in their thoughts and to discuss the EU China Joint statement which will record the summit conclusions and set out aspirations for deepening the EU's relationship with China.
	Uzbekistan
	There will be a brief discussion and the Council is expected to reiterate its concern over the situation in Uzbekistan and to condemn the Uzbek authorities' refusal to allow an independent international enquiry into the recent events in Andizhan. At the 13 June GAERC the Uzbek authorities were given until the end of June to allow for an international enquiry. With this deadline now passed, the EU will be considering a range of restrictive measures.
	World Trade Organisation (WTO)
	There will be a brief discussion by the Council. Peter Mandelson will report back to Foreign Ministers on the mini-ministerial in Dalian (12–13 July) and will give an assessment of how preparations are going in the run up to the end-July WTO General Council in Geneva. The main trade discussion will however take place during the informal trade ministers' dinner on 18 July.
	AOB—Estonia/Russia Border Treaty
	The Estonians have asked for the Estonia/Russia border treaty to be placed on the agenda. They will outline to partners why the ratification of this treaty has stalled and how they hope to take matters forward with the Russian Federation. We do not envision any substantial discussion.

Caroline Flint: The 2004–05 annual report and accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service was laid before Parliament today.
	Copies will be placed in the Library, but formal printing and publication will not take place for another six to nine weeks, pending preparation of a version in the Welsh language, as required by the Welsh Language Act

Health Bodies (Annual Accounts)

Tony McNulty: In February 2005, the Government published "Controlling our Borders: Making migration work for Britain", a five-year strategy for immigration and asylum. I would like to update the House today on progress in three key areas: the development of a points-based scheme for managed migration; the introduction of new policies on limited leave, active review, and settlement for refugees; and the commencement of citizenship tests for new UK citizens.
	We are publishing today a consultation document, "Selective Admission: making migration work for Britain", which is the next step in development of a single points-based system for all routes to work, train and study in the UK. There is no doubt that skilled migrants continue to make a substantial contribution to our prosperity. Migration helps to fill gaps in the labour market, especially in public services such as health and education, and increases investment, innovation and entrepreneurship in the UK. International students contribute significantly to our education system and account for some £5 billion in exports value a year. We have to ensure that the system is focused towards those with the skills and talent this country needs, so migration works for Britain. The existing system is complicated and has developed over many decades. It needs to be simplified so that the general public can understand clearly the basis on which migrants are admitted, and why; so that employers, educational institutions and applicants find it swift, un-bureaucratic and value for money; and decision-makers find it straightforward to administer. The key tests for the system are that it should be operable, robust against abuse, objective, flexible to our changing economic circumstances, cost effective, transparent, useable and compatible with EU and international legislation.
	In order to keep the system robust against abuse, a key principle is that all those who benefit from migration, not just the Government but also employers, educational institutions and migrants themselves, should play a part in helping to ensure that it is not abused. We are consulting on a system of sponsorship which should help to ensure that we only admit those who meet our criteria, that people stick to the terms of their leave to enter while they are here and leave when they are supposed to. In some high risk cases we could require financial bonds from migrants against their return home.
	The proposed framework for the new system is that there should be five tiers of entry to the UK to work, train or study:
	Tier 1, highly skilled and investors;
	Tier 2, skilled workers with job offers, and workers meeting specific overseas requirements;
	Tier 3, specific low-skill schemes to meet short term shortages;
	Tier 4, students; and
	Tier 5, other temporary categories, visiting workers, selected development schemes to meet shortages, and youth mobility/cultural exchange.
	While ensuring that the system is robust against abuse and that our borders our strengthened, we aim to make it easier for employers to access the skills and experience they need and for educational institutions to attract genuine international students. The current two stage process for work permit employment will be replaced by a single application overseas, or in the UK, supported by a self-assessment programme on the web and in leaflets.
	The consultation document has been placed in the Vote Office and the Library. The consultation period closes on 7 November 2005. During the consultation period we shall be engaging in a number of workshops and other events to encourage a widespread and constructive debate. During this period more work will be done to gather evidence and to undertake comprehensive impact assessments. We plan to publish the outcome of the consultation and firm proposals for a reformed managed migration system in spring 2006.
	I am also announcing today that from 30 August onwards refugees will be granted five years limited leave in the first instance, rather than immediate settlement as at present. If there is a significant and non-temporary change in conditions in a country, we would consider whether this should, in line with the Convention's cessation clauses, trigger a case by case review of the position of all or some refugees from that country with limited leave. We would inform Parliament whenever we concluded that such a change justifying an individual review of cases had occurred.
	As is currently the case, any leave granted to refugees may be subject to review if the refugee, through their own actions, brings themselves within the scope of the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention's exclusion or cessation clauses. Refugees will continue to be entitled to use public services and to claim key mainstream benefits.
	Resettled refugees are in a different position from refugees who arrive in the UK as asylum seekers. They have often been outside their country of origin for many years and have no prospect of returning there. As a result of this special position, I consider it appropriate to allow resettled refugees to retain an immediate right to settlement.
	From 30 August onwards, beneficiaries of humanitarian protection will be granted five years limited leave, rather than three as a present. Similar policies on review will apply to them as to refugees with limited leave and they will also, from 30 August, benefit from immediate family reunion.
	I am also now able to give further details of the introduction of tests of knowledge of life in the United Kingdom to be taken by people applying for naturalisation as British citizens. In my statement of 15 June I announced that these tests would be introduced in the autumn of this year, and would be offered by Ufl Ltd at some 90 Learn Direct centres throughout the United Kingdom. I can now confirm that the tests will be introduced on 1 November this year: every person who applies for naturalisation as a British citizen on or after that date and is not exempt by reason of age or disability will need to present a certificate showing that they have passed the life in the UK test or that they have attended an English language course which incorporates approved teaching materials on citizenship in the United Kingdom. These arrangements will supersede the provisions for testing applicants' knowledge of the English language which were introduced last year.
	The fee for the test will be £40, payable direct to Ufl Ltd in addition to the fee payable for a naturalisation application. Special arrangements will be made for those seeking citizenship who are resident in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. Details of these, and further information on how to apply to take the life in the UK test and what it will contain, will shortly be available on the Home Office's website.

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Lord Rooker) has made the following ministerial statement:
	"This statement sets out how I intend to take forward a Racial Equality Strategy for Northern Ireland.
	This statement is all the more timely following the appalling attacks in London of 7 July. These attacks were an attack on all of us. The bombs did not discriminate and people of all faiths and none and people of all racial groups have been victims. At this time, we should remember that communities in the United Kingdom have more that unites them than divides them.
	Government are determined that the atrocities will not be allowed to create tension between our communities. The Good Relations Policy and Strategic Framework, with its vision of a shared and inclusive society, which was published on 21 March 2005 and the Racial Equality Strategy provide solid foundations for a future shared between and within the communities of Northern Ireland—both old and new. They provide a sound basis for a society where relationships are rooted in mutual recognition and trust.
	The Government's vision for Northern Ireland is of a society in which racial diversity is supported, understood, valued and respected: a society where racism in any of its forms is not tolerated and where we live together as a society and enjoy equality of opportunity and equal protection.
	The publication of the strategy today sets a framework for Government and all sections of civil society in Northern Ireland to contribute to achieving that vision. The framework will allow us:
	to tackle racial inequalities in Northern Ireland and to open up opportunity for all;
	to eradicate racism and hate crime; and
	together with A Shared Future—Policy and Strategic Framework for Good Relations in Northern Ireland, to initiate actions to promote good race relations.
	It sets out six shared aims that will point the strategic direction for action by Departments, agencies and wider society, working individually and together, to make a significant difference to the lives of people from minority ethnic backgrounds. The aims of the strategy are: eliminating racism, equality of protection; equality of service provision; participation; dialogue and capacity building.
	The strategy will be taken forward through an action plan that will be developed by the Government in collaboration with the Racial Equality Forum.
	Government will lead by example. It will set the pace to promote racial equality through a strong public policy agenda. Ultimately, however, sustained and deeper progress depends on political stability. It will require leadership at political, civic and community levels.
	Copies of the Racial Equality Strategy for Northern Ireland have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are also available on the website www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/raceequality."

Shaun Woodward: I have placed copies of the Northern Ireland Prison Service's annual report and accounts for 2004–05 in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The annual report details that the service met nine of its 11 key targets. It also outlines that of the comprehensive programme of 28 development objectives set for the service, 15 were achieved, five were partially achieved and substantial progress made towards meeting the remaining eight.
	
		
			 Key Business Area Key Targets Outturn 
		
		
			 Security No escape for top and high-risk prisoners. MET—No escapes in this category. 
			  No more than three escapes per 1,000 medium and low risk prisoners. MET—One escape in September 2004. 
			 Safety The number of staff assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of five per 100 prisoners. MET—Outturn for the year was 0.6 per 100 prisoners. 
			  The number of prisoners assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of six per 100 prisoners. MET—Outturn for the year was 0.9 per 100 prisoners. 
			 Regimes and reducing re-offending An average of at least 18 hours constructive activity per week for each sentenced prisoner. NOT MET—17.4 hours per week achieved. 
			  An average of at least nine hours constructive activity per week for each remand prisoner. MET—9.5 hours per week achieved. 
			  To ensure 82.5 per cent. of prisoners serving six months or more are working to a resettlement plan and that 95 per cent. of lifers work to a resettlement plan, including preparation of the plan, in the first six months from sentence. MET—Outturn of 86.7 per cent. for determinate prisoners and 96.3 per cent. for life sentence prisoners. 
			 Staff and developing the service Deliver at least 85 per cent. of the planned training days associated with the agreed corporate training priorities. NOT MET—The final end of year overall percentage was 77 per cent. 
			  Reduce the rate of absenteeism to an annual average of no more than 19 days per head. MET—Average staff sickness days per head was 16. 
			 Finance, corporate governance and improving business performance Ensure the average cost per prisoner place does not exceed the target to be agreed with HM Treasury. MET—The Prison Service met its 2004–05 CPPP target of £86,800 as agreed with Treasury. The actual 2004–05 CPPP outturn was £85,935. 
			  Lay the Annual Report and Audited Accounts before Parliament prior to the summer recess. MET—Annual Report and Audited Accounts laid before Parliament on 20 July 2004.

Alistair Darling: As prosperity and the demand for goods grow, efficient freight transport is increasingly vital to the UK economy. The Railways Act 2005 has placed responsibility for rail freight in England with the Department for Transport and, with the repeal of section 206 of the Transport Act 2000, the SRA's 2001 Rail Freight Strategy will cease to be in force. It is important, therefore, that the Government restate clearly their objectives for rail freight.
	The Ten Year Plan for Transport, published in 2000, forecast potential growth in rail freight of up to 80 per cent. to 2010. This was interpreted by many as a target, though we had always made it clear that actual growth would depend on a number of factors—in particular, the success of rail freight operators in winning business in highly competitive markets.
	In fact, although it is now recognised that the 80 per cent. forecast is unlikely to be met, growth in the rail freight market has been impressive. Rail freight is a thriving and competitive private sector industry, and since privatisation (1995), levels of freight moved have increased by 55 per cent. (measured in tonne km). Rail freight's market share also increased over the same period from 8.5 per cent. to 11.5 per cent.
	The Government welcome this growth and wish to see it continue. Our clear policy aim is to see goods being moved in a sustainable way, which maximises benefits to the economy and to society. For instance, because they generally have less impact on society than road transport, rail and water freight can bring substantial benefits. In 2004–05, the rail freight industry moved the equivalent of over 7 million lorry journeys and saved 1.43 billion lorry kilometres, delivering significant reductions in pollution and congestion. We believe rail therefore has a crucial role to play in goods transport alongside other modes, and we wish to see freight travelling by rail instead of road wherever this makes most sense.
	This aim can be delivered most effectively by a competitive and dynamic private sector rail freight industry, and this is borne out by the growth since privatisation, which has been driven by real on-rail competition throughout the industry, including several new entrants to the market. We will not dictate to the industry how it should run its business or become involved in operational issues. Where disputes occur with other parts of the railway, they should be resolved through established rail industry dispute procedures.
	But the Government do have a role to play and a relationship with the rail freight industry. Rail freight companies run on the same tracks as the publicly specified passenger railway therefore, the Government have to be mindful of their needs. And the Government recognise and wishes to encourage the important environmental and economic benefits that rail freight can bring.
	We will therefore ensure that our policies and regulations do not put unnecessary obstacles in the way of future growth; we will continue to provide financial support where it is affordable and offers the greatest environmental, congestion and safety benefits when assessed alongside support for other modes; and we will ensure that in specifying the passenger railways, we recognise and take into account the consequences of our decisions upon the rail freight industry.
	To achieve this, we will:
	Continue to support the principle of incremental access charges for freight operators
	Rail freight's ability to compete against road and other modes is dependent upon stable and affordable charging for access to the network. The Government support this and believe it is best achieved through the principle of freight operators paying charges which reflect only the costs that they impose upon the network (in line with the charging principles set out in EU Directive 2001/14). We will therefore work with the rail industry to ensure this remains the case—for instance, providing cleat-guidance if and when the level of freight charges is reviewed by the ORR.
	Work with the freight industry to understand its needs when setting the strategy for the rail network, and to provide the greatest possible certainty of access
	In order for rail freight companies and their customers to invest, they need certainty about where and when they can run trains on the network. The Government will work with the industry to develop robust demand forecasting and modelling tools, and to ensure that it understands the needs of the freight industry when developing its high level output specification and other key policies. We will ensure that our appraisal methodologies treat freight and passenger interests equitably, and we have also committed through the Railways Act to ensuring that appropriate compensation will be provided should the contractual interests of freight companies or others be impaired by changes in outputs. In addition, we welcome Network Rail's decision to produce a national freight utilisation strategy, which will act as a key input to the route utilisation strategies, and also the ORR's recently published policy that UK freight operators should be eligible for access contracts of up to ten years (and longer in exceptional circumstances).
	Ensure grant funding is targeted to deliver the maximum benefits in terms of reducing congestion, pollution and accidents
	From 2007–08, the Government's funding programmes for rail freight, including the reopened freight facilities grant, will be incorporated alongside water and road freight grant programmes into a cross-modal Sustainable Distribution Fund. This will prioritise funding across all three modes to favour those grants that offer the maximum benefits for the money being spent. In the meantime, the Department will consider in consultation with the industry the most appropriate future form for Company Neutral Revenue Support and other grant programmes (which may include opening funding to flows originating from the Channel Tunnel) within the Sustainable Distribution Fund, and seek renewed state aids clearance.
	Work to ensure that regional and local planning decisions reflect Government priorities relating to the sustainable movement of goods
	We wish to see private sector investment in major rail freight facilities, such as intermodal terminals, continue. It is not appropriate for the Government to promote individual schemes—it is for the private sector to develop proposals and progress them through the necessary approvals including planning consent. But the Government do want due account to be taken of our policy goals for the sustainable movement of goods. This does not imply an active role in individual cases, but if necessary we will be ready to act to ensure decision makers are better informed particularly in the application of planning guidance. We will also be ready to consider changes to planning guidance where appropriate.
	Work with the industry and Network Rail to establish how freight growth can be accommodated on the network
	The ORR is currently carrying out work in conjunction with Network Rail to establish the baseline capability of the network. Once that has been completed, we will consider with the industry how we can support, fund and accommodate change. This could be through reallocations of capacity within the existing network which make sense for both passengers and freight, incorporating incremental freight benefits into planned renewals, or considering how freight-specific enhancements might be taken forward by either the private sector or, in the long-term, the Government (subject to strict affordability and value for money criteria).
	Work with the devolved administrations, and with the EC to ensure a consistent UK—and Europe-wide approach to rail freight
	Rail freight is a cross-border business. The Railways Act gave increased powers to support rail freight to the devolved administrations, and we will work with them (and with other partners such as TfL and the Passenger Transport Executives) to ensure that policies relating to rail freight across the UK are consistent. We will also continue to work with the EC to liberalise access to the wider European rail freight market and increase competition, including through the Channel Tunnel.

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (Cherwell District Council)

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council)

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (Wrexham County Borough Council)

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (East Staffordshire Borough Council)

Disability Rights Commission

Anne McGuire: The Disability Rights Commission's annual report and accounts 2004–05 have been published today and laid before Parliament. The DRC's annual report of its activities in the last accounting year amply demonstrates its continuing success in its important work to eliminate discrimination against disabled people; to promote equal opportunities; to encourage good practice and to keep the working of the Disability Discrimination Act and the DRC Act under review.

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (Maldon District Council)

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (Shepway District Council)

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (North West Leicestershire District Council)

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (North Norfolk District Council)

James Plaskitt: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on North Norfolk District Council was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
	In 2003–04, North Norfolk district council administered some £18 million in housing benefits, about 32 per cent of its gross revenue expenditure. Overall, although the council did not meet any of the seven functional areas of performance standards, it was providing a fair standard in housing benefit and council tax benefit administration and counter-fraud activities.
	Surveys by the council showed high levels of customer satisfaction in terms of the physical reception facilities, the quality of advice available and improvements in the speed of the service. But the council had been striving to cope with a backlog of work since June 2004 and processing delays meant performance was below the standards required to decide new claims and changes of circumstances.
	The council's counter-fraud work was under-resourced. The council operated from December 2003 until September 2004 without any investigators and had not achieved any successful prosecutions. Overpayments arose because notified changes of circumstances were not dealt with promptly and overpayment recovery was ineffective. Management information necessary to monitor the level and age of housing benefit debt was not collected.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to BFFs findings.

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (Berwick-on-Tweed Borough Council)

James Plaskitt: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on Berwick-upon-Tweed borough council was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
	In 2003–04, Berwick-upon-Tweed borough council administered some £5.6 million in housing benefits, about 30 per cent, of its gross revenue expenditure. The council gives high priority to combating benefit fraud and is committed to complying with all aspects of the security against fraud and error scheme. The counter-fraud investigation team works hard to deliver a professional and high quality service. The team is well supported by the leader of the council, members, the chief executive and senior managers.
	The report notes a number of good practices, including:
	good working relations with key stakeholders;
	a high standard of recording and filing of documentation in case files;
	a high percentage of referrals investigated;
	accurate subsidy claims that fully comply with Departmental guidance;
	vigorous recovery of fraud overpayments and administrative penalties.
	However, some important weaknesses were identified:
	poor interviewing techniques;
	delays in investigation activity;
	interviews under caution not fully complying with legislation and Departmental guidance;
	no systematic management checking regime;
	The council demonstrated its commitment to improve performance by revising some procedures during the on-site phase of the inspection, including the management of formal cautions, and by acknowledging that other areas need improvement.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to BFFs findings.